The Business School

Cosmopolitanism and international trade unionism: Managerial and mobilising forms

Dr Charles Umney, Work and Employment Research Unit

C.umney@greenwich.ac.uk

Working Paper

No: WERU1

Year: 2013

Abstract ― This conceptual article argues that the well-established sociological concept of

cosmopolitanism has been inadequately applied to organised labour, and specifically to

international activities of trade unions. Taking a Marxian perspective, it sets these subjects side-by-

side, considering firstly what the experience of international trade unionism can reveal about

cosmopolitanism, and secondly theorising the forms cosmopolitanism may take in international

trade union activity. In answer to the first question, it seeks to show how the development of

cosmopolitanism assumes radically different forms among union members and managerial elites. In

answer to the second question, it typologises international trade unionism using two categories

termed ‘managerial’ and ‘mobilising’ internationalisms. These categories have material

determinants, and in each the interaction between material interest representation and

cosmopolitan normativity assumes different forms.

Keywords: Trade unions, Cosmopolitanism, Marxism

University of Greenwich working paper

1

Introduction

Through the concept of ‘cosmopolitanism’ (Beck, 2002; Beck and Sznaider, 2006;

Delanty, 2011, 2012) sociological literature has explored how actors orient towards new

identifications that transcend national boundaries. One of the most pressing questions in

this, now widely-discussed, terrain has been the interconnection between

cosmopolitanism and international economic integration (Skrbis and Woodward, 2007;

Szerszynski and Urry, 2002). The links between the two are somewhat unclear. Does

greater economic interdependence further the development of cosmopolitan identities?

Among which actors, and under what circumstances, is cosmopolitanism more likely to

emerge? Some have sought to redress the depiction of cosmopolitanism as an inherently

elite activity by emphasising how people can be thrown into ‘cosmopolitan’ states in the

course of working life under global capitalism (Kennedy, 2004; Werbner, 1999). Given

this, it is striking that there has been so little cross-fertilisation between literatures on

cosmopolitanism and organised labour. Certainly, increasing interest in topics such as

immigration within industrial relations (IR) scholarship has highlighted tensions

surrounding the complex identities of migrant labourers (Greer et al., 2012). However,

given the impact of multinational capital’s enhanced spatial reach on national labour

movements, there has been surprisingly little attempt to theorise how trade unionists

interact beyond their own borders.

This conceptual article places ideas surrounding cosmopolitanism alongside recent

developments in IR scholarship, focusing particularly on Europe. There are two

objectives: to consider what the study of international trade unionism reveals about

cosmopolitanism, and to integrate the notion of cosmopolitanism into a tentative

theorisation of international trade unionism. Approaching these subjects from a Marxian

perspective, the article argues that despite the empirical heterogeneity of international

trade unionism, two main forms can be distinguished, referred to as ‘managerial’ and

‘mobilising’ internationalisms. These orientations have material determinants; managerial

internationalism is rooted in labour market ‘normality’ and mobilising internationalism is

sparked by labour market ‘tension’. In each case, there is a different type of interaction

between cosmopolitan norms and material interest. In ‘managerial’ forms, the normative

priorities of union officials are argued to be the dominant force in developing (or

disrupting) cosmopolitanism. In ‘mobilising’ forms, by contrast, international solidarity is

likely to develop in a disjointed manner, constrained temporally and spatially by the same

material conditions which give rise to it. Thus, the article seeks to contribute to the

understanding of cosmopolitanism by showing how conflicting perceptions of

globalisation as simultaneously opportunity and threat clash and resolve for trade

unionists in reaction to specific material circumstances, and within specific constraints.

University of Greenwich working paper

2

The structure of the article is intended to reflect the Marxian spirit of ‘rubbing conceptual

blocks together to make a fire’ (Mulhern, 2011:237). In its first half, it juxtaposes

sociological literature on cosmopolitanism with Marxian materialist thought, highlighting

a productive tension between the inherently ‘cosmopolitan’ concept of class

consciousness and the material impediments that obstruct solidarity. The resulting

theoretical framework is then applied to a review of empirical literature on international

trade unionism. The article considers the determinants of ‘managerial’ and ‘mobilising’

modes of international activity, and the extent to which they enable cosmopolitan trade

union orientations.

Cosmopolitanism and the Marxian tradition

There are obvious differences between the sociological literature on cosmopolitanism and

Marxian thought. Most broadly, cosmopolitanism denotes ‘the primacy of world

citizenship over all national, religious, cultural, ethnic and other parochial affiliations’

(Beck and Sznaider, 2006:6). Certainly, the idea of ‘world citizenship’ resonates with

Marx and Engels’s vision of the countryless proletarian as depicted in the Communist

Manifesto. However, whereas the latter was seen as the product of material forces- the

dialectical antithesis of capitalist expansion- sociologists have often interpreted

cosmopolitanism in terms of ethical or cultural norms. To be ‘cosmopolitan’ may signify

an intellectual or cultural openness (Delanty, 2011; Roudometof, 2005; Skrbis and

Woodward, 2007) or a belief in the legitimacy of global governance (Mau et al, 2008). As

Delanty (2012:333) observes, the study of cosmopolitanism therefore concerns ‘major

transformations in the moral and political horizons of contemporary society’. A rigid

Marxism that views normativity as mere reflection of class antagonisms clashes with

these ideas. Nonetheless, this article will argue that Marxian perspectives can interact

constructively with the concept of cosmopolitanism, leading to a useful theoretical

framework through which to study international trade unionism. First, key terms must be

clarified.

Here, ‘cosmopolitanism’ is understood as the de-emphasis of local reference points and a

corresponding belief that social action should be global in scope- expressed more

abstractly, as a ‘universal’ rather than a ‘particular’ outlook (Cheah, 2006; Ferrara, 2007).

‘Cosmopolitanism’ might therefore be seen as the end of a continuum ranging from total

absorption in one’s immediate surroundings to complete disregard for borders and local

particularities. These two extremes are of course ideal types, with myriad in-between

points. In addition, this article also suggests that cosmopolitanism should imply a

sustained commitment to these orientations, rather than sporadic engagement.

Accordingly, cosmopolitanism must not be confused with ‘transnationalism’, denoting

the objective extent to which actors are intertwined in cross-border economic

University of Greenwich working paper

3

interconnections (Roudometof, 2005).1 One might suppose that where transnationalism is

greater, cosmopolitanism is more likely to emerge (Mau et al., 2008), but others have

shown that cosmopolitanism is a ‘fragile commitment’ which can easily be disrupted by

the more threatening elements of globalisation (Skrbis and Woodward, 2007). Beck and

Sznaider (2006) put the question to social scientists: under what conditions does objective

transnationalism produce normative cosmopolitanism?

Expressed this way, the question concerns the interaction between material structures and

human consciousness, about which Marxism has much to say. Marxian thought is

underpinned by the idea of class as a social relation of production. Their view of ever-

expanding class conflict- destroying illusory national boundaries and sentimental cultural

ties as capitalist social relations reproduce themselves- renders Marx and Engels the

consummate ‘cosmopolites’ (Lowy, 1984). Class is a universal category, to which all

forms of local particularity are secondary- and hence the ultimate driver of

cosmopolitanism. This assessment has been attacked empirically and theoretically (e.g.

Beck, 2002; Hyman, 2005; Logue, 1980). In particular, the supposedly universal

character of class has been questioned, notably by post-Marxists (e.g. Gorz, 1982). The

latter have suggested that cosmopolitan identifications emerge through the construction

of ‘equivalencies’ between discrete local conflicts centred on individual experiences of

factors like ethnicity, gender, or culture (Laclau, 1996). Following this, post-Marxist

thought has emphasised pluralistic social movements, pursuing identity or ethical

concerns rather than economic self-interest (Offe and Wiesenthal, 1980), as the primary

agents for contesting globalisation. This is opposed to an international workers’

movement predicated on the universal importance of the employment relation, as

advocated in classical Marxism.

Nonetheless, despite critical reflection on the predictions made in the Communist

Manifesto, a class dimension to cosmopolitanism can be productively highlighted.

Perhaps, however, this dimension is only revealed after ‘turning the Marxian argument on

its head’ (Beck, 2002). Rather than cosmopolitanism being understood as the destiny of a

global working class, it may be more easily labelled as solely the preserve of elites. Beck

(2002:33) summarises this idea: it is ‘the activists of capital, who have made

globalisation their profession, (that) have no nation, while the workers and workers’

movements… call on “their” state for help, to protect them from the adventures of

globalisation’. Binnie and Skeggs (2004) highlight a commonly-made association

between cosmopolitanism and ‘sophistication’, reflecting this depiction of

1 Where the article refers to ‘international trade unionism’ it is in the broadest sense, encompassing the

most limited cross-border interactions to sustained global collaboration. Thus, ‘mobilising’ and

‘managerial’ models both fall under the broader category of ‘international trade unionism’.

University of Greenwich working paper

4

cosmopolitanism as an inherently elite attribute. This characterisation has been heavily

contested. Scholars have attacked the notion that cosmopolitanism can be reduced to a

privileged choice, observing how statelessness can be forced upon workers themselves

through economic processes (Kennedy, 2005:172-197). Social histories of class formation

emphasise how class movements ‘make themselves’, highlighting emergent cosmopolitan

norms in the process. Linebaugh and Rediker (2000:352) record how the connections

developed between expropriated and highly mobile proletarians in the late 18th

century

evolved into ‘egalitarian, multi-ethnic conceptions of humanity’. Similarly, Thompson

(1963) identified internationalism as central to the early working class movement in

England, particularly following the French Revolution. Werbner (1999) highlights more

recent instances of ‘working class cosmopolitans’ among migrant workforces, showing

that the latter are equally capable of ‘opening up to the world’ as elites.

Despite the truth in these arguments, there is also value in Beck’s statement. Analysis of

international trade unionism must recognise the potential for solidarity to develop through

the efforts of workers, but should also understand why workers face stronger structural

barriers to cosmopolitanism than managerial elites. Later, the article discusses empirical

illustration of this argument. The next section considers theoretically why this might be

the case.

Towards a theoretical framework

Marxian theory is concerned with contradictions in capitalist development, and so is well-

placed to consider why increasing ‘transnationalism’ can, far from furthering

cosmopolitanism, have the opposite effect. Harvey (2006) argues that capital is impelled,

on one hand, to ‘annihilate space’ as it conquers new markets. On the other, it

simultaneously creates new boundaries. As new economic geographies emerge in the

search for greater profitability existing cultural, political and infrastructural environments

are undermined. Thus, for Harvey (2006:419-420), class conflict is distorted by territorial

fragmentation. ‘Encrusted traditions’ and ‘local prejudices’ become blurred with

economic claims workers demand of governments and local employers. Consequently,

two opposing conceptions of space are juxtaposed. At critical junctures where capital

reshapes economic space to find more profitable configurations, the universalising force

of capitalist class power is brought into sharp relief. The empirical consequences,

however, are immediate pressures to preserve existing arrangements upon which living

standards depend. Hence, the local and the cosmopolitan are sharply polarised at points of

‘tension’- where capital’s reconfiguration of space threatens the material well-being of

particular groups at particular times.

For Haworth and Ramsay (1986), workers’ responses to these ‘tensions’ cannot be

understood without recognising that labour and capital have qualitatively different

‘starting points’. The latter is likely to view workplace relations in ‘abstract’ terms; as

University of Greenwich working paper

5

‘calculated, objectified, impersonal aggregates’ (Haworth and Ramsay, 1986:60). By

contrast, workers typically experience these relations ‘concretely’; as a network of social

relationships within which solidarities develop. Lefebvre (1991) distinguished between

abstract ‘space’ and concrete ‘place’. ‘Space’ is a tabula rasa of material calculation,

expanding and destroying geographic difference in the interests of ‘rational’ economic

decision-making (Brenner and Elden, 2009). ‘Place’ is subordinate; subsumed by the

‘rootless, fluid reality of material flows… which can be transferred and shifted across the

globe’ (Merrifield, 1993:521). For Haworth and Ramsay (1986), labour’s concrete rather

than abstract experience of workplace relations confers a reactive character on union

action. Capital is impelled to transcend existing arrangements in pursuit of greater

profitability, and workers must respond.

Haworth and Ramsay (1986) do not view this ‘reactive’ character as inevitable. They

suggest that proactive construction of political consciousness among workers- rather than

reacting to material threats- could seize the initiative from multinational capital.

However, rather than sharply dividing between material and political rationales, they

suggest that the development of political norms shapes how material interest is

interpreted and pursued. The two are interrelated, and analysis can seek to untangle them.

With this in mind, the issue of normativity, and the distinction between the ‘particular’

and the ‘universal’ made in the above definition of cosmopolitanism, can be revisited.

This dichotomy has clear resonances in Marxian thought. Kamenka (1962) suggests that

individuals’ ethical choices can be divided between the ‘evil’ of elevating the particular

and the ‘good’ of attempting to transcend it. For Marković (1974), visions of the world in

particular or universalist terms are dialectical opposites, taking precedence according to

underlying material factors. These broad distinctions mask myriad empirical

permutations. Nonetheless, when treated carefully they are of some value.

The theoretical framework elaborated here synthesises the notion of spatial contradiction

under capitalism with an understanding of the generally reactive character of union

action. As Harvey (2006) argues, capital is impelled to seek new spatial configurations.

As Haworth and Ramsay (1986) suggest, workers are impelled to react to these

reconfigurations. Given the contradictory spatial horizons involved in this process-

between the abstract ‘space’ of multinational capital and the concrete threat to ‘place’- it

follows that at moments of ‘tension’, there is indeed a heightened polarisation between

‘local’ and ‘cosmopolitan’ responses. This polarisation may be manifested in a sharply-

posed choice between challenging the scope of capital through expansion of solidarity, or

efforts to preserve local conditions. The ambivalence which is so integral to the idea of

cosmopolitanism- between opportunity for new solidarities and hostility to potential

threats (Skrbis and Woodward, 2007)- comes to a head in these moments of tension.

University of Greenwich working paper

6

Of course, in practice union responses assume an array of forms which cannot be

satisfactorily encapsulated in this bipolar way. However, as Hyman (1975) argues, unions

perpetually list between ‘exclusive’ and ‘inclusive’ tendencies, and empirical diversity

reflects the different actions these logics produce in different circumstances. The

argument here is that moments of ‘tension’ become points of decision between the

particular logic of ‘place’ preservation and the universal cosmopolitan logic of class

solidarity. As argued in the following section, cases of ‘mobilising internationalism’ are

the disjointed and constrained empirical syntheses of these two things.

This framework recalls Marxism’s dialectical emphasis on the quantitative and qualitative

dynamics of social change. Qualitative changes in empirical life should be interpreted by

considering changes in the underlying dynamics of existing factors, rather than first

seeking new variables. For this article’s purposes, the dynamic in question is the balance

of power between employer and employee. Developments that enhance capital’s ability to

utilise wider spatial resources, such as the liberalisation of new labour markets, alter this

balance of power. From the perspective of union members such changes may be abstract,

but if and when they are manifested as concrete threat to employment security, then

workers must make qualitative decisions about their reaction. These decisions are made

against the backdrop of the abovementioned polarisation of spatial logics. Expressed

most abstractly, this means that changes in the nature of trade union solidarity emerge

disjointedly, through responses to particular tensions which become visible as the balance

of class power shifts.

This conceptualisation has important precedents in Marxian thought, which can help

elaborate the notions of mobilising ‘tension’ and managerial ‘normality’ as discussed

above. Luxemburg highlighted the power of particular struggles- the mass strike- as a

means of expanding class solidarity in preference to the more ahistorical Leninist concept

of the vanguard party. For Luxemburg, in periods of ‘normality’ economic struggles are

disaggregated and localised, while political struggles are deferred upwards to

representatives. In periods of conflict, economic grievances can be converted into

expanded class militancy. For Mandel, because unions generally engage in struggle only

episodically and reactively, there is an inherent discontinuity in which the origins of

labour bureaucracy can be located. The distinction between ‘normality’ and ‘tension’ is

thus a dynamic one. The former encompasses widely shifting power dynamics which may

remain abstract or unperceived, only exploding in finite and specific moments of

‘tension’- for example where particular employers pursue outsourcing or ‘coercive

comparisons’ (Meardi, 2012) in particular workplaces.

Because tensions are manifestations of underlying material dynamics, the latter’s

parameters shape the terms under which the former are experienced, and correspondingly

the likely reactions to them. Poulantzas’s (1973) concept of a ‘double articulation’

University of Greenwich working paper

7

suggests that, at any point in time, political and normative factors have substantial

autonomy in catalysing class formation. However, they do so under anterior conditions;

‘the necessary starting point for new generations of practice’ (Hall, 1985:95). Thompson

(1978, cited Bieler, 2006:35) writes that actors ‘identify points of antagonistic interest,

they commence to struggle around these issues and in the process of struggling they

discover themselves as classes’. It is in response to such points- or ‘tensions’- that

cosmopolitan and local logics clash, and through which international solidarity can

emerge. Whether a genuine cosmopolitanism can be the outcome of these clashes will be

discussed further below.

The preceding discussion considered the relationship between cosmopolitanism and

transnationalism, developing a Marxian theoretical framework applicable to international

trade unionism. The notion of a cosmopolitan class identity was juxtaposed with the

localising pressures exerted by capitalist reconfiguration of economic space, and it was

argued that this distinction becomes sharply polarised at particular points of ‘tension’.

Through union responses to these tensions, a ‘mobilising’ internationalism may emerge,

but one which is constrained by the terms which give rise to it. In times of ‘normality’, a

‘managerial’ model of internationalism is likely to prevail, more reflective of the

normative priorities of union elites. The next section elaborates this argument through a

review of empirical literature.

Review of empirical literature on international trade unionism

International trade unionism as the interaction of cosmopolitan norms and material

interest

As noted previously, social histories (Linebaugh and Rediker, 2000; Thompson, 1963)

highlight cosmopolitan norms among insurgent proletariats in the labour movement’s

early, ‘defining’ period before the mid-19th

century (Van der Linden, 2008). Similarly,

Hobsbawm (1962) highlights the countryless existence of radical émigrés during his ‘age

of revolution’. While cosmopolitan currents among politically-engaged working class

activists are therefore historically evident, identifying such a tradition among unions

themselves is considerably harder. As bargaining actors, unions make demands of the

institutions capable of meeting these claims- frequently the state. Consequently, the same

movements are likely to ‘make peace with the nation’ (Linebaugh and Rediker, 2000:352)

when those claims are recognised (see also Harrod, 1972:48). Thus, unions are typically

bound into national arrangements, even if they frequently adopt the universalist language

of class solidarity (Hyman, 2001). Accordingly, Logue (1980:51) confines the most

striking instances of international workers’ activity, for example the movement for the

eight hour day, to ‘the period of initial organisation’.

University of Greenwich working paper

8

Consequently, industrial relations throughout the Twentieth Century and beyond has

typically remained dominated by national actors, with the international environment-

from the perspective of union members- a somewhat remote extra layer (Gumbrell-

McCormick, 2008). Leading early-Twentieth Century trade unionists such as Edo

Fimmen had sought to avoid this. Fearing that confederations of national centres would

remain little more than forums for negotiating particular national interests with all the

rivalries that entailed- as evidenced by the breakdown of international solidarity during

the 1914-1918 war- Fimmen directed his energy towards the sectorally-organised

International Trade Secretariats (ITSs- today renamed GUFs). Because these were able to

directly mirror MNC structures, Fimmen felt ITSs could better incubate a cosmopolitan

proletarian consciousness (Reinalda, 1997). Later, Levinson (1972) described the ITSs as

a means towards directly coordinated multinational collective bargaining. This

‘evolutionary optimism’ (Ramsay, 1999) ties transnationalism and cosmopolitanism

together, anticipating that the increasing interlinking of workers through MNCs will

normalise global solidarity as a response to economic necessity.

While Levinson’s vision of coordinated multinational bargaining has not been fulfilled,

some ITSs/GUFs have achieved striking examples of solidarity. For example, the

International Transport Workers’ Federation’s (ITF) ‘Flag of Convenience’ (FOC)

campaign establishes internationally-recognised wages on ships which ‘flag out’ to less-

regulated countries. These conditions can be enforced through international union action-

where dockers in multiple countries may refuse to unload ships violating international

agreements. The ITF has sought to counter conflicts of interest between capital and

labour supply countries by emphasising the normative value of a universal minimum

wage for seafarers (Koch-Baumgarten, 1998; Lillie, 2004). Thus, while the FOC

campaign is ostensibly about improving economic conditions, it also depends on the

militant ideology of dock workers. While dockers have ‘no consistent structural interest’

(Lillie, 2004:58-59) in the FOC campaign, they are threatened by wider deregulation of

sea transport. Normativity and material interest are intertwined. In this sense the FOC

campaign, much like, this article argues, international trade unionism more generally, can

be best understood by considering the interaction between cosmopolitan norms of

solidarity and material interest.

This perspective undoubtedly challenges more pessimistic visions of international trade

unionism. Logue’s (1980:10) theorisation suggests the very purpose of unions- to ‘pursue

the short-term economic interests of their members’ (emphasis added)- deters

international solidarity. Cosmopolitan norms are, in Logue’s account, merely ‘ideological

residues’, and international activity remains the preserve of elites with little relevance to

membership. Certainly, complex and contradictory short term economic interests have

beset the history of international union organisations (Carew et al., 2000), and

consequently some writers (e.g. Gumbrell-McCormick, 2008) posit a relatively clear

University of Greenwich working paper

9

distinction between ‘economic’ and ‘political’ rationales for international activity. For

Logue, the latter is the weaker force by some distance, but the former provides little

reliable motivation for international solidarity. However, making this distinction does not

provide solid conclusions- an economic rationale can be invoked to justify both

Levinson’s optimism and Logue’s pessimism. More constructive in explaining cases such

as the FOC campaign is Van der Linden’s (2008) typology of rationales, which ranges

from short-term interest to normative support, with two categories in between: longer

term interests, and indirect interests (where those involved believe that improving others’

working conditions will help preserve their own). Thus, normative orientations, rather

than being separate from material motivations, are manifested in different ways of

interpreting interest. The idea of cosmopolitanism as a continuum might therefore be

converted into the following diagram, which shows increasingly ‘cosmopolitan’ ways of

pursuing interest (adapted from Van der Linden, 2008).

Figure 1

As argued previously, constant tension between ‘exclusive’ and ‘inclusive’ orientations

underpins the historical development of trade unionism (Hyman, 1975), and the

prevalence of different orientations in response to specific material tensions pushes union

strategies in different directions along figure one. Various historical accounts of craft

unionism during the early decades of industrialisation exemplify this antagonism. British

unions expanded organisation, but simultaneously sought to define boundaries within

which solidarity could operate through restrictions on trade entry (Engels, 1967; Foster,

1967). Similarly, the early American workers' movement, while espousing ostensibly

internationalist platforms, sought to limit migration and the advancement of ethnic

minority workers in an effort to define constituencies for solidarity (Aronowitz, 1992;

Pizzolato, 2004). A historical overview is beyond the scope of this article. Nonetheless, a

contradictory dynamic can be observed. The need to respond to the expanded

reproduction of capitalist social relations both generates and seals off collective

constituencies, simultaneously pushing unions towards expanded cooperation and

'Place' preservation Expanded

mobilisations

'Indirect' participation in campaigns

Sustained normative

commitment

University of Greenwich working paper

10

presenting obstacles to more cosmopolitan forms of solidarity. This process is explored in

the following section.

‘Tension’ and mobilising internationalism

By examining contemporary empirical scholarship on international trade unionism, this

section argues that cases of international mobilisation tend to be reactions to specific

material ‘tensions’. The ‘mobilising’ model of trade unionism, based around militant

industrial activity, has gained traction in recent decades, particularly following the

breakdown of Keynesian national compacts (Van der Linden, 2008). For the purposes of

this article, ‘mobilising internationalism’ means internationally-coordinated grassroots

activity (primarily strikes or other industrial action) targeted at policymaking elites- as in

Turnbull’s (2006) case study- or, more commonly, shared multinational employers. Erne’s

(2008) European Unions voices this ambition more widely, arguing for a more

democratic (i.e. grassroots-led) pan-European union engagement. This section agrees that

such mobilisations are indeed possible, but will also suggest that their reactive character

confers temporal and spatial limitations on ‘mobilising internationalism’, generally

limiting it to the second stage in figure one.

Turnbull (2006:311-312) highlights the reactive nature of recent international

mobilisations in the European docks sector, tracing the development of pan-European

solidarity against liberalising legislation (which, in itself, is clearly somewhat different

from ‘cosmopolitanism’; a point explored further below) to the ITF’s decision to

‘mobilise big actions against specific issues’ (emphasis added). In Erne’s case, critics (see

Phelan et al., 2009) have pursued similar lines of argument. Phelan suggests that

mobilisations are sporadic interruptions of the more normal ‘technocratic’ character of

international trade unionism. Hancké characterises mobilisations as ‘defensive coalitions’

rather than proactive efforts to build a cosmopolitan labour identity. Hancké (Phelan et

al., 2009:203) acknowledges the possibility for solidaristic norms, arguing that these

norms ‘work best when infused with a healthy dose of self-interest’. This is a more

nuanced position than an earlier study (Hancké, 2000), in which he finds unions seduced

by the short term logic of job retention over the longer term logic of inter-union

coordination of demands, but he retains a view of international union activity as primarily

defensive reaction. So interpreted, mobilising internationalism is not about whether

unions follow economic or political rationales, but the spatial and temporal horizons of

their reactions to ‘tension’. In other words, whether they pursue reactive self-interest

through short term ‘place’ preservation or expanded cooperation through coordinated

international mobilisations over particular grievances.

Meardi (2012) and Greer and Hauptmeier’s (2008) depictions of intra-European trade

union cooperation resonate with this notion of ‘tensions’. Meardi (2012:104) argues that

disinterest in international solidarity may reflect a lack of scope for ‘coercive

University of Greenwich working paper

11

comparisons’- i.e. direct labour market competition- between workers in different

countries. Where coercive comparisons do exist, international solidarity is ‘needed, but

uneasy’: a rationale for solidarity coexists with a material basis for rivalry. Finally,

Meardi suggests that where capital successfully stabilises new international divisions of

labour, the contradictory rationale for solidarity again weakens. ‘Tension’ has been

followed by release. Greer and Hauptmeier (2008) argue that where employers pursue

coercive comparisons, and where a lack of access to ‘co-management resources’ impedes

the ability of union elites to influence employers, the key actor is likely to be the

‘political entrepreneur’- activists or leaders that inject principles of solidarity to frame

particular tensions as necessitating international, rather than local, collective action. In

their study, such mobilisations - as opposed to elite bargaining- were confined to the

European level; a fact which will be examined further below.

What Greer and Hauptmeier term ‘political entrepreneurship’ is an integral component of

mobilisation among industrial relations actors. Kelly’s (1998:29) application of

mobilisation theory to trade unionism highlights the importance of normative framing in

industrial relations disputes. He points towards the use of ‘emotionally loaded

categories’- such as exploitation or class solidarity- in defining expanded constituencies

for collective action. Johns (1998) shows how a political emphasis on class solidarity can

convert local job preservation into a search for shared interests between unions

undergoing coercive comparisons. Carew et al’s (2000:526) history repeatedly illustrates

the need for international solidarity to be ‘achieved time and time again’ by looking

beyond immediate short term interest in response to economic challenges. Therefore,

mobilisation progresses through the ‘framing’ of spatially and temporally expanded

models of solidarity However, as Kelly’s (1998) influential account of mobilisation

theory shows, a necessary condition for this process is specific grievances which can be

reacted against and reframed. Inherently 'cosmopolitan' concepts such as class solidarity

can be used to frame specific disputes and push mobilising responses into the second

stage shown in figure one. In this way, the ‘moral and political’ notion of

cosmopolitanism (Delanty, 2012) can be situated within a material analysis of an

expanding global capitalism. Where there are exceptional pockets of militant ideology, as

among docker participants in the FOC campaign, the third stage- ‘indirect interest’- may

be reached. The 'anterior conditions' of these tensions, however, push back in the other

direction. These constraining conditions take two forms.

The first constraint is spatial. Because mobilising constituencies form in reaction to

specific grievances, they generally encompass only those workers who are directly

threatened by these tensions. Moreover, it was previously theorised that tensions reflect

capital’s search for more profitable arrangements. This process must also have actual or

potential ‘beneficiaries’- those whose material wellbeing is invested in prospective new

‘place’ configurations- and the existence of these ‘beneficiaries’ imposes limits to the

University of Greenwich working paper

12

scope of solidarity. Even an exceptional case of solidarity reflecting high degrees of

normative commitment such as the FOC campaign reveals interest antagonisms between

unions from ‘labour supply’ (i.e. developing) and ‘capital supply’ (i.e. developed)

countries embodied in tensions over FOC minimum rates (Koch-Baumgarten, 1998;

Lillie, 2004).

These barriers, however, are clearest within Europe. Fetzer (2008:295) has shown how

European unions’ decisions to expand solidarity in response to Europe-wide restructuring

initiatives also depended on a ‘shared European vulnerability’ relative to the rest of the

world. In other words, expanded mobilisation between European unions against shared

employers was catalysed by the existence of potential beneficiaries of new spatial

configurations beyond Europe. Indeed, the continuing development of international union

institutions within Europe may enhance the sense of the non-European world as a threat

(Ghighliani, 2005). More broadly, other writers observe barriers to solidarity between

workers whose existing ‘places’ are undermined and workers whose ‘places’ are in

creation (Arrighi and Silver, 2000; Eder, 2002; Silver, 2003). In these contexts,

mobilising internationalism may be an attempt to define a larger conception of ‘place’

and to expand the constituencies mobilising in its defence. Thus, the potential use of

cosmopolitan class categories to mobilise nonetheless falls short of cosmopolitanism

itself. As in the above discussion of US and UK labour history, mobilising solidarities

expand disjointedly within the contours of capitalist uneven development, simultaneously

creating and limiting constituencies for collective action.

Moreover, because of its reactive nature, mobilising internationalism is also constrained

temporally. As Meardi (2012) observes, where tensions produced by coercive

comparisons are eventually diminished, the rationale for solidarity weakens. Hyman

(2005) identifies an historical ‘agitator’ internationalism- a ‘bottom-up’ response to

employer internationalisation- which is inherently reactive, enduring while particular

mobilising struggles continue unresolved. Ferus-Comelo (2008) distinguishes between

‘top-down’ methods- including advocacy over international trading standards and labour

rights- and ‘bottom-up’ solidarity- targeting MNCs through industrial coordination. The

former takes place at supra-national level within forums such as the International Labour

Organisation, and hence aligns with the ‘managerial’ model sketched out below. Thus,

there are overlapping temporal structures at work: the multinational firms which form

material levers for solidaristic reactions to specific disputes, and the ongoing

relationships developed through elite contact within supranational institutions.

In these senses, the reactive character of mobilising internationalism means it is unlikely

to be fully ‘cosmopolitan’ insofar as, in practice, any embrace of universalist principles

cannot be separated from the disruptive pressures of interest representation. Because it

reacts to specific threats to material security in specific places, instances of mobilisation

University of Greenwich working paper

13

are inherently finite. Additionally, because expanded solidarities formed in response to

capital’s reconfiguration of economic space are catalysed by the ‘shared vulnerability’

(Fetzer, 2008) of a particular constituency, they are liable to exclude the ‘beneficiaries’ of

new spatial arrangements. The framing of particular tensions can use ‘emotionally loaded

categories’ (Kelly, 1998:29) such as class solidarity to catalyse expanded mobilisations

rather than place preservation, but this cosmopolitan thrust collides with the

abovementioned limits, giving mobilising internationalism a disjointed character.

‘Normality’ and managerial internationalism

The term ‘managerial internationalism’ may pejoratively suggest an elitist model

(Martinez-Lucio, 2010), with some writers associating the conservatism of bureaucracy

with labour parochialism (Moody, 1997; Waterman, 2001). For Logue (1980), the

international activity of full-time officials is often parasitical and irrelevant to members’

interests. While acknowledging the potentially conservative role of bureaucracy, this

section suggests an ambivalent portrayal of managerial internationalism. It suggests the

normative activity of officials is the most likely route to a sustained cosmopolitanism

within unions, albeit at the expense of grassroots agency. In particular, it emphasises how

the development of international interpersonal contacts at elite level facilitates sustained

normative commitment to international activity among international union officials.

As Hyman (2005) and Harrod (1972) have argued, while mobilisations disrupt the

bureaucratic division of labour, the status quo of international trade unionism is usually

the deferral of international affairs ‘upwards’ to union elites. This may be because the

agency of managerial elites is less constrained by specific structural configurations than

that of workers. Logue (1980) argues that, where officials undertake international activity,

they do so liberated from imperatives of interest representation. Where unions express

political commitments to internationalism, this may primarily reflect the normative

positions of union officials (Gumbrell-McCormick, 2008). Accordingly, the more

optimistic accounts of union cooperation through institutions such as EWCs emphasise

personal agency and developing interconnections between union officials at elite level.

Such interconnections stabilise the ‘inner life’ of institutions (Banyuls et al., 2008), and

catalyse an ‘evolution in the attitude’ of key actors (Da Costa and Rehfeldt, 2007:315).

Contra reactive mobilisations, these developing interpersonal solidarities may provide

more scope for a sustained cosmopolitan commitment to grow more steadily. As

Waddington (2006) argues, key ‘office holders’ within EWCs are most likely to de-

emphasise local reference points in their activities, leading to more developed

communication and information sharing rather than coordinated mobilisations.

Despite its elitism, this organisational dynamic may also be more adapted to international

‘social movement’ campaigning. This assertion appears counter-intuitive, given

associations between ‘social movement unionism’ and grassroots initiative (Moody, 1997;

University of Greenwich working paper

14

Waterman, 2001). More nuance therefore needs to be added to the central distinction.

Managerial and mobilising internationalisms should be understood not as rigid empirical

categories, but rather as ‘directions’. Mobilising internationalism sees active agency

transferred ‘downwards’, as unions stimulate expanded solidarity between members in

reaction to tensions. Managerial internationalism sees agency transferred 'upwards' to

full-time officials. This does not mean that the issues it addresses are necessarily

irrelevant to members. For example, members may express normative commitment

towards causes such as human rights campaigning, which become part of a cosmopolitan

‘rights’-oriented unionism; for example, supporting campaigns over human and labour

rights in Latin America (Novelli, 2007) or South Africa (Southall and Bezuidenhout,

2004). It is these types of campaigns that have most effectively enabled solidarity

between workers in the post-industrial world and the industrialising one. However, while

such campaigns may indeed reflect cosmopolitan norms shared at grassroots level, their

driving agency is likely to gravitate away from member mobilisation and towards

managerial coordination. Frank's (2003) historical study infers a ‘hierarchical dynamic’ to

‘social movement’ campaigning. Because normativity rather than material interest is

prominent, union activity increasingly prioritises influencing the consumer or voting

choices of the public at large- inevitably weakening the primacy of member self-

representation (Ross, 2008). Therefore the notion of ‘managerial internationalism’ as

discussed here cannot simply be characterised as conservative bureaucracy, and may also

be evident in innovative forms of union activity such as social movement unionism.

If managerial internationalism catalyses ongoing international interpersonal contact and is

more dependent on the normative orientations of key officials, it may also be less

confined by the temporal and spatial barriers inherent in the mobilising model.

Managerial internationalism is the ‘normality’ of international trade unionism,

sporadically disrupted by the eruption of underlying material antagonisms into visible

‘tensions’. This accords with Marxian analyses such as Luxemburg’s, in which insurgent

class movements usurp bureaucratic elites only in periods of particular mobilising

grievances. The latter, by definition, are disjointed and finite. Hence, even accounts of

celebrated instances of international solidarity, like the 1990s Liverpool dock lockouts,

suggest that following initial surges in solidarity the pre-eminent actors in maintaining

and coordinating communications on a day-to-day basis were increasingly officials

(Kennedy and Lavalette, 2004). Even in sustained international campaigns which

emphasise militant industrial solidarity, mobilisations tend to be reactive, with full-time

officials tasked with fostering contacts between tensions (Umney, 2012). Thus, different

unions are not divided into ‘mobilising’ or ‘managerial’ brackets. Instead, wherever it

occurs, the former temporarily disrupts the latter. The argument here therefore differs

from that of Erne (2008)- who identifies a choice between ‘democratic’ and ‘technocratic’

strategies shaped by the prior experiences and traditions of trade unionists- instead

University of Greenwich working paper

15

suggesting an oscillation between ‘directions’ within unions depending on material

circumstances.

A new dimension to Beck’s (2002) suggestion that cosmopolitanism emerges more

readily among managerial elites can be advanced. While it is inaccurate to suggest that

cosmopolitanism has no place among union rank-and-file, its development assumes

radically different forms at different levels. In mobilising forms, it is disjointed, and

continually runs up against countervailing forces. In managerial forms, it is often

somewhat isolated from grassroots concerns and thus able to develop more

independently. Following Haworth and Ramsay (1986); like the capitalist, full-time union

officials have different ‘starting points’ from their members. In their relative removal

from workplace pressures, they can consider the role of the union in more abstract terms.

Thus, their action can more easily extend beyond reacting to threats to ‘place’, loosening

the constraints of anterior material conditions that obstruct progress along figure one. One

might also hypothesise that, because by definition cosmopolitan norms are aspatial and

atemporal, they may even legitimate a managerial division of labour within unions. If

mobilisations are inherently 'particular', then they cannot be used to further a sustained

normative cosmopolitanism. Therefore the two types identified here may, in fact, be

complementary. The contacts forged by officialdom in times of ‘normality’ may be

invaluable tools to draw on in times of ‘tension’, comparable to the idea of a ‘ratchet’ in

Levinson’s (1972) work (Ramsay, 1999). This is not to suggest managerial

internationalism is inherently cosmopolitan. Rather, the normativity of official agency has

greater autonomy in managerial models. Thus, 'cosmopolitan' officials are critical

conditions for international solidarity, and parochial officials are an insurmountable

barrier. Where officials do assume ‘cosmopolitan’ outlooks, in order to translate into

international mobilisation this must interact with, and in the process give a new meaning

to, existing expectations about interest representation. The alternative is a polarisation

between elitism on the one hand and parochialism on the other.

Conclusion

This article has sought to bring together the hitherto distant bodies of literature on

cosmopolitanism and transnational IR. In doing so, it has suggested two points for

consideration in the ongoing debate over cosmopolitanism. Firstly, it has sought to show

how cosmopolitanism develops according to different dynamics at elite and grassroots

levels within unions. Secondly, it has suggested that the ambivalence which is integral to

the notion of cosmopolitanism- as highlighted by writers such as Skrbis and Woodward

(2007)- is heightened for workers at points of ‘tension’, at which these competing logics

clash and find new form.

The article has also sought to build the notion of cosmopolitanism into a theorisation of

international trade unionism. It has pointed towards contradictions in the spatial dynamics

University of Greenwich working paper

16

of capitalism, reflecting the juxtaposition between a universalising class antagonism and

the material pressures to preserve ‘place’. These contradictions both produce and

constrain instances of ‘mobilising internationalism’, which can most abstractly be

described as qualitative manifestations of underlying power shifts between labour and

capital. The kernel of truth in the suggestion that cosmopolitanism is confined to

managerial elites lies in the fact that ‘managerial internationalism’ does not face the

temporal and spatial constraints exerted on mobilising internationalism to the same

degree, if at all.

Of course, the concrete empirical forms taken by international trade unionism will remain

heterogeneous. Nonetheless, despite this practical diversity, this article argues that the

core of these two different ‘directions’ will always be discernible. International trade

unionism’s ‘normality’ is likely to remain dominated by full-time international officials,

and increasingly cosmopolitan union orientations are possible depending on their own

preferences. At times of ‘tension’ the potential exists for the limited expansion of

solidarity to create a constrained and disjointed mobilising model. It is mistaken to look

for an undiluted normative cosmopolitanism as the driving force behind working class

opposition to globalisation. Rather, focus should be on the ways in which inherently

cosmopolitan concepts such as class solidarity catalyse the expansion of the scope of

material conflicts between employer and employee.

Bibliography

Aronowitz, S. 1992 False Promises: The Shaping of American Working Class

Consciousness, Durham and London: Duke University Press

Arrighi, G. and Silver, B. 2000 ‘Workers North and South’, in Panitch, L. and Leys, C.

(eds.) Socialist Register 2001: Working Classes, Global Realities, London: Merlin

Banyuls, J., Haipeter, T. and Neumann, L. 2008 ‘European Works Councils at General

Motors Europe: Bargaining Efficiency in Regime Competition?’, Industrial Relations

Journal 39(6): 532-47

Beck, U. 2002 ‘The Cosmopolitan Society and its Enemies’, Theory, Culture & Society

19(1-2): 17-44

Beck, U. and Sznaider, N. 2006 ‘Unpacking Cosmopolitanism for the Social Sciences: A

Research Agenda’, British Journal of Sociology 57(1): 1-22

Bieler, A. 2006 The Struggle for a Social Europe: Trade Unions and EMU in Times of

Global Restructuring, Manchester: Manchester University Press

University of Greenwich working paper

17

Binnie, J. and Skeggs, B. 2004 ‘Cosmopolitan Knowledge and the Production and

Consumption of Sexualised Space: Manchester’s Gay Village’, The Sociological Review

52(1): 39-61

Brenner, N. and Elden, S. 2009 ‘Henri Lefebvre on Space, State, Territory’, International

Political Sociology 3(4): 353-77

Carew, A., Dreyfus, M., Van Goethem, G., Gumbrell-McCormick, R. and Van der Linden,

M. 2000 The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, Bern: Peter Lang

Cheah, P. 2006 ‘Cosmopolitanism’, Theory, Culture & Society 23(2-3): 486-96

Da Costa, I. and Rehfeldt, U. 2007 ‘European Works Councils and Transnational

Bargaining about Restructuring in the Auto Industry’, Transfer: European Review of

Labour and Research 13(2): 313-6

Delanty, G. 2011 ‘Cultural Diversity, Democracy and the Prospects of Cosmopolitanism:

A Theory of Cultural Encounters’, British Journal of Sociology 62(4): 636-56

Delanty, G. 2012 ‘A Cosopolitan Approach to the Explanation of Social Change: Social

Mechanisms, Processes, Modernity’, The Sociological Review 60(2): 333-354

Eder, M. 2002 ‘The Constraints on Labour Internationalism: Contradictions and

Prospects’ in Harrod, A. and O’Brien, R. (eds.) Global Unions: Theories and Strategies

of Organised Labour in the Global Political Economy”, London: Routledge

Engels, F. 1967 ‘The Condition of the Working Class in England’ in Henderson, W. (ed.)

Engels: Selected Writings, London: Penguin

Erne, R. 2008 European Unions: Labour’s Quest for a Transnational Democracy, Ithaca:

Cornell University Press

Ferrara, A. 2007 ‘”Political” Cosmopolitanism and Judgement’, European Journal of

Social Theory 10(1): 53-66

Ferus-Comelo, A. 2008 ‘Mission Impossible? Raising Labor Standards in the ICT

Sector’, Labor Studies Journal 33(2): 141-62

Fetzer, T. 2008 ‘European Works Councils as Risk Communities: The Case of General

Motors’, European Journal of Industrial Relations 14(3): 289-308

Foster, J. 1976 ‘British Imperialism and the Labour Aristocracy’ in Skelley, J. (ed.) The

General Strike, 1926, London: Lawrence and Wishart

Frank, D. 2003 ‘Where are the Workers in Consumer-Worker Alliances? Class Dynamics

and the History of Consumer-Labor Campaigns’, Politics & Society 31(3): 363-379

University of Greenwich working paper

18

Ghigliani, P. 2005 ‘International Trade Unionism in a Globalizing World: A Case Study

of New Labour Internationalism’, Economic and Industrial Democracy 26(3): 359-382

Gorz, A. 1982 Farewell to the Working Class: An Essay on Post-Industrial Socialism

London: Pluto Press

Greer, I., Ciupijus, Z. and Lillie, N. 2012 ‘The European Migrant Workers’ Union: Union

Organizing Through Labour Transnationalism’, European Journal of Industrial Relations

(forthcoming)

Greer, I. and Hauptmeier, M. 2008 ‘Political Entrepreneurs and Co-Managers: Labour

Transnationalism at Four Multinational Auto Companies’, British Journal of Industrial

Relations 46(1): 76-97

Hall, S. 1985 ‘Significance, Representation, Ideology: Althusser and the Post-

Structuralist Debates’, Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 2(2): 91-114

Hancké, B. 2000 ‘European Works Councils and Industrial Restructuring in the European

Motor Industry’, European Journal of Industrial Relations 6(1): 35-59

Harrod, J. 1972 Trade Union Foreign Policy: A Study of British and American Trade

Union Activities in Jamaica, London: MacMillan

Harvey, D. 2006 The Limits to Capital, London: Verso

Haworth, N. and Ramsay, H. 1986 ‘Matching the Multinationals: Obstacles to

International Trade Unionism’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy,

6(2): 55-82

Hobsbawm, E. 1962 Age of Revolution, 1789-1848, New York: New American Library

Hyman, R. 1975 Industrial Relations: A Marxist Introduction, London: MacMillan

Hyman, R. 2001 Understanding European Trade Unionism: Between Market, Class and

Society, London: Sage Publications

Hyman, R. 2005 ‘Shifting Dynamics in International Trade Unionism: Agitation,

Organisation, Bureacuracy, Diplomacy’, Labor History 46(2): 137-54

Johns, R. 1998 ‘Bridging the Gap Between Class and Space: US Worker Solidarity with

Guatemala’, Economic Geography 74(3): 252-272

Kamenka, E. 1962 The Ethical Foundations of Marxism, London: Routledge and Kegan

Paul

University of Greenwich working paper

19

Kelly, J. 1998 Rethinking Industrial Relations: Mobilisation, Collectivism and Long

Waves, London: Routledge

Kennedy, P. 2004 ‘Joining, Constructing and Benefiting from the Global Workplace:

Transnational Professionals in the Building Design Industry’, The Sociological Review

53(1): 172-197

Kennedy, J. and Lavalette, M. 2004 ‘Globalisation, Trade Unionism and Solidarity:

Further Reflections on the Liverpool Dock Lockout’, in Munck, R. (ed.) Labour and

Globalisation: Results and Prospects Liverpool: Liverpool University Press

Koch-Baumgarten, S. 1998 ‘Trade Union Regime Formation Under the Conditions of

Globalization in the Transport Sector: Attempts at Transnational Trade Union Regulation

of Flag-of-Convenience Shipping’, International Review of Social History 43(3): 369-402

Laclau, E. 1996 Emancipation(s), London: Verso

Lefebvre, H. 1991 The Production of Space, London: Wiley-Blackwell

Levinson, C. 1972 International Trade Unionism, London: George Allen & Unwin

Lillie, N. 2004 ‘Global Collective Bargaining on Flag of Convenience Shipping’ British

Journal of Industrial Relations 42(1): 47-67

Linebaugh, P. and Rediker, M. 2000 The Many-Headed Hydra: The Hidden History of the

Revolutionary Atlantic, London: Verso

Logue, J. 1980 Toward a Theory of Trade Union Internationalism, Gothenburg:

University of Gothenburg

Lowy, M. 1984 ‘Marx and Engels: Cosmopolites: The Future of Nations Under

Communism (1845-1848)’, Critiques: Journal of Socialist Theory 14(1): 5-12

Marković, M. 1974 The Contemporary Marx: Essays on Humanist Communism,

Nottingham: Spokesman Books

Martinez-Lucio, M. 2010 ‘Dimensions of Internationalism and the Politics of the Labour

Movement: Understanding the Political and Organisational Aspects of Labour

Networking and Coordination’, Employee Relations 32(6): 538-556

Mau, S., Mewes, J. and Zimmermann, A. 2006 ‘Cosmopolitan Attitudes Through

Transnational Social Practices?’, Global Networks 8(1): 1-24

Meardi, G. 2012 ‘Union Immobility? Trade Unions and the Freedoms of Movement in

the Enlarged EU’, British Journal of Industrial Relations 50(1): 99-120

University of Greenwich working paper

20

Moody, K. 1997 ‘Towards an International Social Movement Unionism’, New Left

Review 225: 52-75

Mulhern, F. 2011 Lives on the Left: A Group Portrait London: Verso

Novelli, M. 2007 ‘Sintraemcali and Social Movement Unionism: Trade Union Resistance

to Neo-Liberal Globalisation in Colombia’, in Gamble, A. Ludlam, S., Taylor, A. and

Wood, S. (eds.) Labour, the State, Social Movements, and the Challenge of Neoliberal

Globalisation, Manchester: Manchester University Press

Offe, C. and Wiesenthal, H. 1980 ‘Two Logics of Collective Action’, in Offe, C. (ed.)

Disorganised Capitalism, Oxford: Polity Press

Phelan, C., Martin, A., Hancké, B., Baccaro, L. and Erne, R. 2009 ‘Labour History

Symposium on European Unions: Labour’s Quest for a Transnational Democracy’, Labor

Histoy 50(2): 187-216

Pizzolato, N. 2004 ‘Workers and Revolutionaries at the Twilight of Fordism: The

Breakdown of Industrial Relations in the Automobile Plants of Detroit and Turing, 1967-

1973’, Labor History 45(4): 419-43

Poulantzas, N. 1973 Political Power and Social Classes, London: New Left Books

Ramsay, H. 1999 ‘In Search of International Union Theory’, in Waddington, J. (ed.)

Globalization and Patterns of Labour Resistance, London: Mansell

Reinalda, B. 1997 The International Transportworkers Federation 1914-1945,

Amsterdam: Stichting beheer IISG

Ross, A. 2008 ‘The Quandaries of Consumer-Based Activism: A Low Wage Case Study’,

Cultural Studies 22(5): 770-787

Roudometof, V. 2005 ‘Transnationalism, Cosmopolitanism and Glocalization’, Current

Sociology 53(1): 113-135

Silver, B. 2003 Forces of Labor: Workers’ Movements and Globalization Since 1870,

New York: Cambridge University Press

Skrbis, Z. and Woodward, I. 2007 ‘The Ambivalence of Ordinary Cosmopolitanism:

Investigating the Limits of Cosmopolitan Openness’, The Sociological Review 55(4):

730-747

Southall, R. and Bezuidenhout, A. 2004 ‘International Solidarity and Labour in South

Africa’, in Munck, R. (ed.) Labour and Globalisation: Results and Prospects Liverpool:

Liverpool University Press

University of Greenwich working paper

21

Szerszynski, B. and Urry, J. 2002 ‘Cultures of Cosmopolitanism’, The Sociological

Review 50(4): 461-481

Thompson, E. 1963 The Making of the English Working Class, Southampton: The

Camelot Press

Thompson, E. 1978 ‘Eighteenth-Century English Society: Class Struggle Without

Class?’, Social History 3(2): 133-65

Turnbull, P. 2006 ‘The War on Europe’s Waterfront: Repertoires of Power in the Port

Transport Industry’, British Journal of Industrial Relations 44(2): 305-326

Umney, C. 2012 ‘Managerial and Mobilizing Internationalism in the British Docks and

Seafaring Sector’, European Journal of Industrial Relations 18(1): 71-87

Van der Linden, M. 2008 Workers of the World: Essays Toward a Global Labor History,

Leiden: Brill

Waddington, J. 2006 ‘The Performance of European Works Councils in Engineering:

Perspectives of the Employee Representatives’, Industrial Relations 45(4): 681-708

Waterman, P. 2001 ‘Trade Union Internationalism in the Age of Seattle’, Antipode 33(3):

312-36

Werbner, P. 1999 ‘Global Pathways: Working Class Cosmopolitans and the Creation of

Transnational Ethnic Worlds’, Social Anthropology 7(1): 17-35